Around the late 00âs and early 10âs Farage was given a platform well beyond that which his status deserved. As the leader of UKIP - a party which at that time was pretty irrelevant - he was unnecessarily platformed by the BBC and others, and allowed to spout his drivel and raise his profile.
At the time he led a party with no MPs and a minuscule vote share, he was, by some distance the politician with the most Question Time appearances. That is a big part in his he was able to gain traction in the UK.
He was treated as a curiosity, a source of good content, and now weâre stuck with him.
He definitely had a breakdown, and I think the cause of it was too much Twitter. He was a very early adopter, and has described as being an intrinsic part of his life.
If you are so embedded in that ecosystem, that Wild West of discourse which is so far removed from the normal civility of life, then you probably donât see anything wrong with (for example) creating a fake trans identity to infiltrate a trans dating app, and then then using that information to out trans people in public and harass them.
That wasnât even the worst of it. There was one picture that he posted which he had found on a regular dating site that he claimed was really a man trying to trick people. It didnât stay up for long and I think it may have been the cause of one of his Twitter bans.
Itâs similar to some of the rows about female boxers which become deeply misogynistic pile-ons because a woman, assigned female at birth, isnât pretty enough for their liking.
As for Linehan, I think he is in a state of denial. I read an except of his autobiography which was published in an Irish newspaper and his version of events were wildly different from what most people witnessed.
Itâs sad, because he is a genuinely gifted writer, not just some outrage grifter.
Farage described Kebede as âa self-declared Marxist ⌠someone who is absolutely determined that our children should be poisoned at school, their minds should be poisoned about everything to do with this countryâ.
I donât think there is a right thing for Starmer to do.
This issue is so unsuitable for being dragged through the courts. There is no conclusive right/wrong, and no way any government can legislate to âprotect female only spacesâ.
This issue will trundle on.
The losing side will always maintain that the decision is wrong, and demand further hearings or judgements.
Bit like the Scottish and Brexit referendums.
The Gender Critical crowd are entitled to campaign for what they want, and use the courts if thatâs appropriate, but the valedictory language they have used in commentating on their win reveals a nasty, spiteful edge to their opinions. Talking about the law confirming ârealityâ and tackling âdelusional thinkingâ is just really shitty, and unnecessarily hurtful.
It really shows where their heads are at. Weâre talking about a law trying to arbitrate between the rights of one set of human beings over the rights of another set of human beings, and the end result is that one of those sets of human beings is going to be legally discriminated against.
It seems like the victors are now enjoying the win, but also the opportunity to really put the boot in.